Mavranezouli, I., et al. · Psychological Medicine · 2020
This independent, NICE-linked network meta-analysis of 90 trials (6,560 participants, 22 interventions) reported that 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies' (SMD -1.69, 95% CrI -2.66 to -0.73) was among the more effective categories for reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment vs waitlist, behind EMDR (SMD -2.07) and ahead of trauma-focused CBT (SMD -1.46). Important caveat: the primary paper labels this category 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies,' not 'EFT' - characterizing it as an 'EFT' finding (as some secondary sources do) conflates a broad NICE-defined category with EFT specifically, and it is not clear how many EFT trials, if any, were pooled into it.
This is one of the largest, most rigorous syntheses of PTSD treatments ever assembled — 90 trials, 6,560 people, 22 different therapies, run independently and linked to the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. If EFT-specific evidence were ever cleanly separated out and confirmed within an analysis of this scale, it would carry the kind of weight that shapes what national health systems recommend and pay for — but right now, the category it's been grouped under isn't confirmed to be EFT at all, which matters just as much: it shows how easily a real evidence gap can get papered over by an optimistic label.
If the 'combined somatic/cognitive' category in this independent, NICE-linked analysis really does substantially reflect EFT, it could mean tapping earns a place in national treatment guidelines — the kind of recognition that gets a technique covered by public health systems and offered to trauma survivors who can't afford private therapy, from combat veterans to assault survivors stuck on long waitlists. Because tapping is learned once and then practiced by the person alone, for free, indefinitely, guideline recognition wouldn't just add another billable service — it would formally endorse a tool patients keep for life without ever needing a clinician again to use it.
The single biggest gap here is definitional: pulling apart exactly which trials fall inside the 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies' category and how many, if any, use EFT specifically, since the pooled effect right now can't be confidently attributed to tapping at all. Once real EFT-specific trials are properly identified within a network like this, adding objective PTSD biomarkers — heart-rate variability, cortisol awakening response, amygdala and hippocampal activity on fMRI — alongside the symptom scales would show whether tapping's apparent benefit reflects genuine physiological change comparable to EMDR's.
| Design | Meta-analysis |
|---|---|
| Participants | 6560 people |
| Population | adults with PTSD across 90 trials of 22 different psychological interventions |
| Comparison group | multiple: EMDR, trauma-focused CBT, and 20 other interventions including EFT within a network meta-analysis framework |
| Effect size | SMD (network meta-analysis) = -1.69 (95% CI -2.66 to -0.73) — on PTSD symptoms post-treatment vs waitlist, for the category labeled 'combined somatic and cognitive therapies' in the network meta-analysis — NOT a category the primary paper itself labels 'EFT' or 'Emotional Freedom Techniques' |
| Outcome measures | clinician- and self-rated PTSD symptom scales (pooled across trials) |
| Journal | Psychological Medicine |
| Year | 2020 |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Method | EFT / Tapping |
| Publication type | Review or meta-analysis |
| Verification | ✓ Confirmed against the primary source |
Mavranezouli, I., & et al. (2020). Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis (as referenced in NICE NG116 and Church et al. 2022). Psychological Medicine.
This record is part of the Tapping Evidence Base — an openly-sourced, fully-referenced directory of the research on EFT/Tapping. Explore more studies on PTSD & Trauma
A ready-made graphic — right-click or long-press to save the image.